Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

C Somashekar vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 October, 2017

Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar

Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar

                          -1-
                                      WP No.51762/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

                       PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH
               ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                         AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

     WRIT PETITION NO.51762/2016 (KLR-LG-PIL)

BETWEEN:

1.    C.SOMASHEKAR
      SON OF CHIKKADEVANNA
      AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
      AND RESIDING AT HUCHANAPALYA
      HUSKUR POST
      DASANAPURA HOBLI
      BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
      BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 162

2.    LOKESH Y.T.
      SON OF DODDAGANGAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
      AND RESIDING AT PILLAHALLI
      ARSIHNAKUNTE POST
      DASANAPURA HOBLI
      BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
      BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 162

3.    A. NARAYANAPPA
      SON OF LATE ADAVIAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
      AND RESIDING AT PILLAHALLI
      ARSIHNAKUNTE POST
      DASANAPURA HOBLI
      BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
      BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 162
                            -2-
                                       WP No.51762/2016

4.     R. SAMPATH
       SON OF LATE RAMAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
       AND RESIDING AT HONNASANDRA
       DASANAPURA HOBLI
       BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
       BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 162

5.     G.P.NARAYANAPPA
       SON OF PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
       AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
       AND RESIDING AT GOWDANAHALLI
       SHIVANAPURA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI
       BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
       BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 107
                                            ...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SUDHA S.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
       VIDHANA SOUDHA
       BENGALURU - 560 001

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       BENGALURU DISTRICT
       BENGALURU - 560 001

3.   THE BENGALURU BRUHATH MAHANAGARA PALIKE
     HUDSON CIRCLE
     BENGALURU - 560 001
     REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE SERVED)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 23.06.2016 PASSED BY R2 AT ANNEXURE-D, THE
ORDER DATED 15.03.2016 PASSED BY R1 AT ANNEXURE-E AND
THE ORDER DATED 17.05.2016 PASSED BY R2 AT ANNEXURE-F.
                                -3-
                                              WP No.51762/2016

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

Ag.CJ (Oral):

1. This Public Interest Litigation is directed against the order dated 17.05.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru. By the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner has granted government land in Dasanapura Hobli measuring 5 acres 37 guntas in Survey No.19 of Thammenahalli Village free of cost to Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation for the purpose of distribution of sites to siteless poor persons under the Ashraya scheme.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the record.

3. The sole contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the entire extent of the land is a gomal land and the declassification of the gomal land is not in accordance with Rule 97(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 ('the Rules'). -4- WP No.51762/2016

4. As could be seen from the proviso to Rule 97(4) of the Rules, no declassification of gomal land is necessary if the land is granted for the purpose of distribution of sites to siteless persons. In this case, admittedly, the gomal land is granted for the purpose of distribution of sites to siteless persons. Therefore, the contention that the grant is contrary to Rule 97(4) of the Rules is not correct. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE hkh.